Scali v. Key Bank of New York, N.A.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Scali v. Key Bank of New York, N.A.

203 A.D.2d 551, 611 N.Y.S.2d 21, 24 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 162, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4331

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 25, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 551 (Scali v. Key Bank of New York, N.A.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Scali v. Key Bank of New York, N.A., 203 A.D.2d 551, 611 N.Y.S.2d 21, 24 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 162, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4331 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover damages for wrongful dishonor of a check, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated July 16, 1992, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

We agree with the defendants’ contention that the plaintiff lacks standing to maintain an action pursuant to UCC 4-402 for wrongful dishonor of a check. UCC 4-402 provides that "[a] payor bank is liable to its customer for damages proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor of an item” (emphasis added). The term "customer” is defined in UCC 4-104 (1) (e) as "any person having an account with a bank or for whom a bank has agreed to collect items”. Here, the record indicates that the plaintiff had an account with the Middletown Savings Bank, rather than with the defendant Key Bank of New York, N.A. or the defendant Key Bank of Eastern New York, N.A. Therefore, the action must be dismissed because the plaintiff was not a "customer” of the defendant banks within the meaning of UCC 4-402 (see, Quistgaard v EAB European Am. Bank & Trust Co., 182 AD2d 510, 514; Agostino v Monticello Greenhouses, 166 AD2d 471; see also, Annotation, 88 ALR4th 613). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an action to recover damages for wrongful dishonor of a check, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated July 16, 1992, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the defendants’ motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

We agree with the defendants’ contention that the plaintiff lacks standing to maintain an action pursuant to UCC 4-402 for wrongful dishonor of a check. UCC 4-402 provides that "[a] payor bank is liable to its customer for damages proximately caused by the wrongful dishonor of an item” (emphasis added). The term "customer” is defined in UCC 4-104 (1) (e) as "any person having an account with a bank or for whom a bank has agreed to collect items”. Here, the record indicates that the plaintiff had an account with the Middletown Savings Bank, rather than with the defendant Key Bank of New York, N.A. or the defendant Key Bank of Eastern New York, N.A. Therefore, the action must be dismissed because the plaintiff was not a "customer” of the defendant banks within the meaning of UCC 4-402 (see, Quistgaard v EAB European Am. Bank & Trust Co., 182 AD2d 510, 514; Agostino v Monticello Greenhouses, 166 AD2d 471; see also, Annotation, 88 ALR4th 613). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 551, 611 N.Y.S.2d 21, 24 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 162, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4331, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scali-v-key-bank-of-new-york-na-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack